Argentina Reasserts Claims To Falklands (again)

[Humphrey Bogart]

Daily Telegraph

I wonder if Drake is tired of bowling.  It sounds like Cadiz may need another singeing. 

Drake singes the King of Spain's beard.

Spain and England: 450 years of convivial relations and counting. 

By the way:  Sarcasm is in effect.


Edit:  This is what happens when empires let down their guards.  With the old RN the Dons would never have dared to challenge HMG on Gibraltar and the Falklands.

That would be great if the UK still had an empire.  The whole purpose of Gibraltar was to give the RN control of the straits and provide the RN with a staging base into the Mediterranean to combat the French Navy.  The Falklands served a similar purpose as RN staging base for ships travelling around Cape Horn.  Personally, I think any sort of question of sovereignty over the Falklands and Gibraltar should be down the present residents to decide via referendum, their seems to be very little flavour on the Falklands or in Gibraltar for a change though so Spain and Argentina can go stuff it.

I view this as sabre rattling to get a few votes at home, nothing more , nothing less. 

 

[Kirkhill]

That would be great if the UK still had an empire.  The whole purpose of Gibraltar was to give the RN control of the straits and provide the RN with a staging base into the Mediterranean to combat the French Navy.  The Falklands served a similar purpose as RN staging base for ships travelling around Cape Horn.  Personally, I think any sort of question of sovereignty over the Falklands and Gibraltar should be down the present residents to decide via referendum, their seems to be very little flavour on the Falklands or in Gibraltar for a change though so Spain and Argentina can go stuff it.

I view this as sabre rattling to get a few votes at home, nothing more , nothing less.

The mayor of Linea agrees with you Drew.  She figures that Madrid is trying to divert attention from its scandals and impotence.

Not sure that I entirely agree with you.  I take the "freedom of the seas", which permitted the Falklands to exist and required the garrisoning of Gibraltar, as a critical issue.  Say what you like about the Brits, to my knowledge,  they never resorted to that vice of Kings, taxation, to provide free passage on the high seas.  When Britannia Ruled the Waves there were no tolls charged by the RN for their protection.  You couldn't say the same for goods transported by land.  Every shipment was subject to mail.

Now that doesn't say that the RN didn't enforce embargoes and restrict trade, nor does it say that HMG didn't charge duties on importation.  But, compared to regimes on shore, Pax Britannica was very liberal on trade on the high seas.

Pax Americana has been equally liberal.

Neither Britannia nor America have been able to maintain the police force necessary to keep those high seas open and free from pirates (government sponsored or otherwise).  Both of them have gone broke trying to do it alone.

That force is required.  I would prefer that such a force be funded by like-minded folks on a voluntary basis than be funded by a central government coercively (ahem UN ahem) or by a dissimilar government with notions of mail and taxes.

An argument for Canada to step up its Naval game and start carrying some of the policing burden.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The mayor of Linea agrees with you Drew.  She figures that Madrid is trying to divert attention from its scandals and impotence.

Not sure that I entirely agree with you.  I take the "freedom of the seas", which permitted the Falklands to exist and required the garrisoning of Gibraltar, as a critical issue.  Say what you like about the Brits, to my knowledge,  they never resorted to that vice of Kings, taxation, to provide free passage on the high seas.  When Britannia Ruled the Waves there were no tolls charged by the RN for their protection.  You couldn't say the same for goods transported by land.  Every shipment was subject to mail.

Now that doesn't say that the RN didn't enforce embargoes and restrict trade, nor does it say that HMG didn't charge duties on importation.  But, compared to regimes on shore, Pax Britannica was very liberal on trade on the high seas.

Pax Americana has been equally liberal.

Neither Britannia nor America have been able to maintain the police force necessary to keep those high seas open and free from pirates (government sponsored or otherwise).  Both of them have gone broke trying to do it alone.

That force is required.  I would prefer that such a force be funded by like-minded folks on a voluntary basis than be funded by a central government coercively (ahem UN ahem) or by a dissimilar government with notions of mail and taxes.

An argument for Canada to step up its Naval game and start carrying some of the policing burden.

The Royal Navy was also just a bunch of pirates in the early days of Drake and Company.  Lets not forget the annual "lets find the Spanish treasure fleet" voyages, the British may have gotten better as time went on but that was only after all their competition had been eliminated.  In any case it is all history and has little bearing on the present situation today.

The Falkland Islands have been a permanent British Colony since 1840 and Gibraltar has been held formally by the English since the signing of the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713.  To try to argue some sort of claim to the land based on something that happened 300 years ago is not on especially when all of your ancestors who inhabited the land have now left and been replaced by British citizens, as is the case for both Gibraltar and the Falklands.

I saw a clear case for the UK to give up possession of Hong Kong but I don't see the same thing here.

Edit:

In case anyone want a good book to read about British naval operations and their on the world I would recommend the book "To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World" by Arthur Herman. 

 

[Kat Stevens]

What, you never heard the expression "Britannia waives the rules" before?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

What, you never heard the expression "Britannia waives the rules" before?

haha as do all great powers when it suits them 

 

[Kirkhill]

The Royal Navy was also just a bunch of pirates in the early days of Drake and Company.  Lets not forget the annual "lets find the Spanish treasure fleet" voyages, the British may have gotten better as time went on but that was only after all their competition had been eliminated.  In any case it is all history and has little bearing on the present situation today.

The Falkland Islands have been a permanent British Colony since 1840 and Gibraltar has been held formally by the English since the signing of the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713.  To try to argue some sort of claim to the land based on something that happened 300 years ago is not on especially when all of your ancestors who inhabited the land have now left and been replaced by British citizens, as is the case for both Gibraltar and the Falklands.

I saw a clear case for the UK to give up possession of Hong Kong but I don't see the same thing here.

Edit:

In case anyone want a good book to read about British naval operations and their on the world I would recommend the book "To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World" by Arthur Herman.

I also own Herman's companion piece: "How The Scots Invented the Modern World".

I agree the Drake and Co, just like the Dunkirkers, the Sea Beggars, the Sallee Rovers and Buccaneers were pirates.  But one man's pirate is another man's "free-trader".

 

[Old Sweat]

I also own Herman's companion piece: "How The Scots Invented the Modern World".

I agree the Drake and Co, just like the Dunkirkers, the Sea Beggars, the Sallee Rovers and Buccaneers were pirates.  But one man's pirate is another man's "free-trader".

Or the government's take was financing Elizabeth's reign ( I read the book RD quotes plus the one about the hidden parts of Drake's voyage) but don't really think Sir Francis in wherever old mariners go is rummaging through his ditty bag for his sticks to drum the Dons' destruction.

I would be more worried about what signals the US administration is unwittingly giving to the Argies and the Spaniards.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Or the government's take was financing Elizabeth's reign ( I read the book RD quotes plus the one about the hidden parts of Drake's voyage) but don't really think Sir Francis in wherever old mariners go is rummaging through his ditty bag for his sticks to drum the Dons' destruction.

I would be more worried about what signals the US administration is unwittingly giving to the Argies and the Spaniards.

Elizabeth and her Lord Treasurer, William Cecil, Lord Burghley, and her Principal Secretary, Sir Francis Walsingham all invested - and that probably is the most appropriate term - in Drake's enterprises. All three were often in relatively tight financial circumstances and a small investment in Drake provided, over and over again, a large and, equally important, a quick return. Elizabeth was reluctant, for good reason, I think, to test parliament's will on matters of her privy purse; my assessment is that parliament knew it had her over a constitutional barrel and it would not have been afraid to test her. The Spanish treasure convoys were a godsend. For the raid on Cadiz Elizabeth was the major actor - providing four major combatants and some funding, and she received 50% of the loot. (Elizabeth probably knew Drake, before Burghley and Walsingham introduced him at court, through her governess and confidante Katherine Champernowne who was, like, Drake, from the West of England.)

 

[Infanteer]

Personally, I think any sort of question of sovereignty over the Falklands and Gibraltar should be down the present residents to decide via referendum, their seems to be very little flavour on the Falklands or in Gibraltar for a change though so Spain and Argentina can go stuff it.

I was in Gibralter in November of 2002 when they had that referendum.  The vote was something like 95% in favour of staying with the UK.  There were Union Jacks everywhere and a pretty good party.

 

[tomahawk6]

The UK might consider giving Gibraltar its independence,but it would remain in the Commonwealth for defense purposes.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's possible that I have a link to an female Irish sea pirate through my Mom's side. (McWilliam)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%A1inne_N%C3%AD_Mh%C3%A1ille

 

[The Bread Guy]

In the words of this blog entry, "Is this a sign that the ‘for domestic consumption’ sabre rattling isn’t working and the people of Argentina have more important things to worry about?"

Argentina’s Sunday primary was the worst election result for Kirchnerism since they first arrived to office in 2003, almost thirty percentage points below the 54% of Cristina Fernandez re-election in 2011 writes Rosendo Fraga, Argentine historian and political analyst. 

(....)

Fraga underlines that on Sunday’s primary even with a much divided opposition, three out of four votes did not support Cristina Fernandez and her development model, and in the crucial Buenos Aires province, which decides any national election, the mayor of Tigre Sergio Massa was a clear winner and ready to dispute her leadership ....

MercoPress South Atlantic News Agency, 13 Aug 13

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The UK might consider giving Gibraltar its independence,but it would remain in the Commonwealth for defense purposes.

I am afraid the Commonwealth has no defense/military function whatsoever, unless you count the War Graves Commission.

However, what you propose already exists, almost, under the Gibraltar Constitution of 2006, which was adopted after the citizens of Gibraltar rejected for the second time Spanish sovereignty in the referendum of 2002. Under that constitution, the UK retains obligations towards Gibraltar for defense and foreign relations, but otherwise the territory is self-governing.